Why has SpamCop stopped automatically processing my spam reports? I'm
getting emails with links to manually process the reports. The only
changes I've made was to add more fuel.

Spam can be submitted by email by approved reporters using the quick
submit address, which results in the spam being parsed for source, the
body ignored, and the notify of the source sent to the derived provider
address -- without any further input from the reporter.  The reporter is
provided an email with the parse results and a tracker reflecting what
was done.

The standard 'nonquick' method for handling email spam submissions is
for the parser to parse the headers for source, the body for obfuscated
url/s, and for a tracker to the result of the parse to be emailed to the
reporter.  When the reporter accesses the tracking url, s/he is provided
with options to approve the notifies as divined by the parser, or to
uncheck or to cancel the report/notifies as derived.

It isn't clear why you would be/ were/ changed from a quick reporter to
a standard nonquick by your message description.  The website access to
communicate with SC admin starts here...

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/401.html  How can I contact a
SpamCop representative? -- Other reasons for contact

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:26:28 -0700, "Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid>
wrote:

|> Why has SpamCop stopped automatically processing my spam reports? I'm
|> getting emails with links to manually process the reports. The only
|> changes I've made was to add more fuel.
|
|Spam can be submitted by email by approved reporters using the quick
|submit address, which results in the spam being parsed for source, the
|body ignored, and the notify of the source sent to the derived provider
|address -- without any further input from the reporter.  The reporter is
|provided an email with the parse results and a tracker reflecting what
|was done.
|
|The standard 'nonquick' method for handling email spam submissions is
|for the parser to parse the headers for source, the body for obfuscated
|url/s, and for a tracker to the result of the parse to be emailed to the
|reporter.  When the reporter accesses the tracking url, s/he is provided
|with options to approve the notifies as divined by the parser, or to
|uncheck or to cancel the report/notifies as derived.
|
|It isn't clear why you would be/ were/ changed from a quick reporter to
|a standard nonquick by your message description.  The website access to
|communicate with SC admin starts here...
|
|http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/401.html  How can I contact a
|SpamCop representative? -- Other reasons for contact

And how to I communicate with the SC admin? I tried finding a support
link on the Spamcop web page but it's not there.

FYI: I am reporting via email attachment to the email address I was
provided when I was set up a couple of years ago as an approved
reporter.

The link I provided above makes a communication with your account/email.
See the function at the bottom called 'Reason for contact'

Yes, but the form of the submit address is different for quick reporters
than regular reporters.

--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:34:39 -0700, "Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid>
wrote:

|> "Mike Easter"
|
|>> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/401.html  How can I contact a
|>> SpamCop representative? -- Other reasons for contact
|>
|> And how to I communicate with the SC admin? I tried finding a support
|> link on the Spamcop web page but it's not there.
|
|The link I provided above makes a communication with your account/email.
|See the function at the bottom called 'Reason for contact'
|
|> FYI: I am reporting via email attachment to the email address I was
|> provided when I was set up a couple of years ago as an approved
|> reporter.
|
|Yes, but the form of the submit address is different for quick reporters
|than regular reporters.

I'm sorry. I didn't pay attention to the link. I thought it was
something thrown in by the mail reader and didn't bother to verify
that it wasn't.

Thanks for your help!